In forensic investigations of a crime scene, trace evidence plays a crucial role in providing insights into the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator of a crime scene. This is because of the assumption that trace evidence is transferred between objects, people, or the environment in the crime’s event. Here, for an investigator conducting forensics, they can construct potential links between a suspect and a victim to a mutual locality through trace evidence (Buzzini & Curran, 2020). Trace evidence comes in different forms and complexity, which calls for proper handling protocols to avoid contamination or damage.
A house can be a potential place for seeking relevant trace evidence vital for forensic investigations which may be for the victim or the culprit. These trace evidence may include hair, fiber, soil, or paint, provided they portray a unique gesture that would determine the link between the parties involved in the crime scene (Hess & Haas, 2017). Trace evidence is common on the floor, given that most of the crimes committed involve movement leading to an unconscious exchange of traces that fall on the floor. However, the authenticity of the trace evidence provides a general visualization of the precedence of the crime at all angles of investigations.
In tracing this evidence, it would be rational to have a closer look at the house’s blind spots. These blind spots encompass dust bunnies in a corner and vacuum up a portion of the rug. Nevertheless, through technological advancements in forensics, other trace evidence would be captured (Buzzini & Curran, 2020). This creates more room for classifying and comparing more trace evidence and conversely translates to solving mysteries behind criminal persons and the crimes they committed. However, through standard procedures, the trace evidence presumes to represent a comparative analysis in establishing forces involved within or outside the crime scene.
It is rational to include items of comparison which are sampled from the victim and potential delinquent. The role of these items of comparison provides a larger space in finding patterns of behavior and movements of both the victim and perpetrator resenting to the commitment of the crime (Hess & Haas, 2017). As a result, this evokes the application of justice as defined by the law in the crime’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the management of these items of comparison should be first-hand and traceable as well to have an accurate and reliable comparative pattern. This creates room for investigators to conduct tactical approaches in solving cases as a votive in serving justice and abiding by the constitution.
Trace evidence appears abstract, but they are a crucial element in making inferences affecting the magnitude of the crime. Here, trace evidence has played a crucial role in shaping the justice system by assisting in an investigation (Buzzini & Curran, 2020). Therefore, these trace pieces of evidence would assist in an investigation in diverse ways. Hair as trace evidence is captured through people shedding their hair during the day. This makes it transferable, making it active in an investigation comparing the DNA strings to identify animal versus human hair. Through distinguishing, hair comparison can determine disease, race, method of removal, damage, and body area.
Over time, criminal activities have become more technical and organized. Therefore, with the existence of trace evidence, investigators build their cases. As a result, investigators can determine the intention and the motive of the wrongdoer. However, the adjacent implication of trace evidence cannot be determined without applying technological principles to understand the crime scene and its components. Notably, trace evidence may appear abstract, but they form a vital element in making inferences influencing the extent of the crime.
References
Buzzini, P., & Curran, J. M. (2020). Interpreting trace evidence. In V. J. Desiderio, C. E. Taylor & N. N. Daéid (Eds.), Handbook of trace evidence analysis (pp. 421-454). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Web.
Hess, S., & Haas, C. (2017). Recovery of trace DNA on clothing: A comparison of mini‐tape lifting and three other forensic evidence collection techniques. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(1), 187-191. Web.